Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer, specializing in the law of wrongful dismissal. He can be reached by email or you can visit his firm’s website.

Contact Information

317 Adelaide St. West, Suite 1001
Toronto, Ontario
M5V 1P9 
Tel (416) 640-1583

Employment Law Advice

July 18, 2007

Cumulative changes amount to constructive dismissal

Daniel A. Lublin, Toronto Metro News
Wednesday, July 18 2006

"Not many men have both good fortune and good sense."
- Titus Livy

John-Louis Drapeau was the consummate company man.  But when his job was gradually eroded, his loyalty quickly turned to fury.  Believing that his demotion was tantamount to a dismissal, Drapeau fled and then proceeded to sue his ex-employer.  His beliefs were vindicated at trial.

While the law of constructive dismissal is fact driven, employees can glean valuable advice from this case:

  • courts don't confine the doctrine of constructive dismissal to a single or readily identifiable change to an employee's job.
  • when changes are imposed, not every employee can simply pack up and place a call to their lawyer.  The changes must be obvious, negative and substantial - and must be so in the eyes of the judge, not just the litigants.
  • An employee who consents to or condones significant changes can cry foul if the aftermath proves less than desirable.  Some form of protest must be registered. 
  • employees with valid grievances may even have to remain in the altered job or risk failing to mitigate damages.  In order to unavail employers of this defence, counsel should always be consulted.

Click here for the entire article "Cumulative Demotion leads to Success in Court"

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer specializing in the law of wrongful dismissal.  He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com

July 15, 2007

Blunder Procedure and Pay the Price

Unionized employees have little recourse to the courts

Daniel A. Lublin

Toronto Metro News, Wednesday, July 11, 2007

When Garry and Mark Coleman heard that fellow employee Wayne Demers was planning to file a fraudulent insurance benefits claim, they blew the whistle to their employer.  Demers was immediately fired.  Then, in typical union fashion, hostility brewed among Demers' former union brethren.  When that hostility escalated into fear, the Colemans resigned.  Months later, with their jobs gone and their reputations in tatters, they turned to the courts instead of their union to grieve their alleged wrongs.  Their decision proved fatal to their case. 

As is the typical problem with unionized employees proceeding to sue in court, they should approach jurisdictional issues practically.  Chances are that the court will not entertain their grievance and will instead, order that the matter was better heard in front of an arbitrator - usually after it is too late.

For more, click to to read the entire article - "Blunder Procedure and it could cost you"

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer specializing in the law of Wrongful Dismissal.  He can be reached at www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com 

June 27, 2007

Exceptions to Signed Contracts

Anything goes into employment contracts
--
but not all written contracts are enforced

Daniel A. Lublin, Toronto Metro News
Published Wednesday June 27, 2007

Written employment contracts represent employment law's most ambivalent feature.  Here are the top 5 ways to opt out of a signed deal:

  • illegality
  • ambiguity
  • lack of consideration
  • duress or unconscionability
  • Changed Substratum

Click to read the entire article, "Employment Contracts Can be Broken".

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer, specializing in discipline and dismissal.  He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com 

June 20, 2007

Permanent Illness can put your Career at Risk.

Frustrating the Employment Contract

Daniel A. Lublin, Metro Toronto News
Published Wednesday June 20, 2007

Employers are entitled to expect their employees to show up for work.  Without a valid reason, employees who don't show up are subject to dismissal without pay.  Temporary illness, however, usually proffers that valid reason.  But what of the employee who's disability renders her unlikely to ever return to her job?  As Terry Ann Wilmot recently learned, illness is not always a shield from dismisal. 

To read the full, published, column, click "Long-Term Illness can Risk Career".

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer specializing in the law of discipline and dismissal.  He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com or through his firm's website www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com 

June 13, 2007

Employees Need to Combat Warning Signs for Dismissal

Daniel A. Lublin
Toronto Metro News, June 13, 2007

With no legal entitlement to continued employment, Canadian employees decry that the law of dismissal favours their employer.  Employer, however, don't have a magic bullet for liberating themselves from unsatisfactory employees; most mistakes are made by the employees themselves.

Read "watch for the warning signs of dismissal" for the top five errors that employees can make in response to discipline at work -- and what they ought to do instead.

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer specializing in the law of discipline and dismissal.  You can reach him at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com or via his website www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com

June 06, 2007

Off Duty Conduct Can Affect the Health of Your Career

Daniel A. Lublin, Toronto Metro News
Published June 6, 2007

Employees who believe that their conduct away from the office is immune from discipline are mistaken.  Employers have the technological means and occasionally the inclination to monitor behaviour that occurs away from the job. And where off-duty behaviour poses a problem, don’t be surprised when it follows you back to your desk.

Read the entire article Off Duty Actions Can Affect Your Job

  • Criminal behaviour unrelated to the workplace but which nonetheless injures an employers interests can amount to cause for dismissal.
  • Off-duty conduct that casts doubt on your honesty or the ability to perform your job can be cause for dismissal.
  • When the public’s safety is in issue, your personal business becomes your employer’s problem.
  • Where off-duty conduct creates a serious conflict of interest with the work of the organization, employees may successfully be fired for cause.

Despite these examples, proving just cause often remains a daunting task for employers. Both they, and their employees, should gauge the following rules.

  1. Proof of misconduct may not be present, but it seldom matters if it is conduct that is, or is likely to be, ruinous to the interests or reputation of the employer.
  2. Proving just cause for dismissal is more likely to be successful if there are negative public consequences or unfavourable publicity brought on as a result of off-duty conduct.
  3. Off-duty behaviour that renders other employees unwilling to work with the perpetrator can be grounds for immediate dismissal.

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto Employment Lawyer specializing in the law of discipline and wrongful dismissal.  He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com or you can visit him on the web at www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com

May 31, 2007

Unionized Employees Have No Hope In Court

Employment Law Question sent to me:  Is it possible to seek outside representation if one is a Unionized employee?

For the most part, you cannot sue your unionized employer in court; you must exhaust the grievance procedures provided in the collective agreement. 

Unionized employees need to consult with their union representatives.  An employment lawyer can supplement the opinion you are given, but generally he or she cannot take legal action on your behalf.  In appropriate cases, an employment lawyer may be able to take on a supervisory role with respect to a grievance or legal issue you have.   

Despite these restrictions, there are legal certain claims that a court will entertain even though they arose in the unionized environment.  Claims for wrongs such as sexual harassment, or defamation, may be brought in the courts, by a lawyer.  But you risk the court declining jurisdiction if the judge feels that it is better dealt with by an arbitrator, appointed pursuant to the collective agreement. 

Best of luck,
Daniel Lublin

For more employment law question and answers, see my column at www.executiveassistance.com 

May 30, 2007

Calculating Severance Pay

Metro Toronto News, Wednesday May 30, 2007
Daniel A. Lublin

Seldom is severance pay based on arithmetic.  Courts do not follow any defined rules in calculating how much severance to pay to a particular employee.  Neither does your ex-employer. Rather, a judge’s task is to consider all of the circumstances that either hinder or help a dismissed employee to find a new job. I am familiar with over 100 factors relevant to this determination. However, rarely will that many issues compete in any one case. More typically, there are four or five factors that are more often considered than others.

The time to replace a particular job is the single most important factor in your entitlement to severance pay, but it is also the most imprecise. A court will be particularly interested in how long it has, or ought to have, taken the employee to find a similar position, considering the relative skill, experience and training that employee possesses. Employees with greater credentials and industry-related sophistication are presumed to be able to re-employ more swiftly. However, rarely is this their reality.  The former manager who held a specialized position will experience difficulty in replacing the status, prestige or pay that she previously enjoyed and will be awarded greater severance to compensate for the longer period of time that she went without pay.

The length of employment is also considered. An employee’s entitlement to severance pay is proportionally related to the length of time that she had been employed, with a longer-term employee receiving more severance pay. For exceptionally long-term employees, finding a replacement job is more difficult because they have been out of the job market for longer and their skills or accreditations may have become obsolete. For this reason, shrewd employers frequently offer outplacement services as part of their initial offer of severance.

Courts award more severance pay to older employees. A judge’s inclination to grant older employees greater severance is not based on sympathy.  Rather, it is based on statistical data demonstrating that older employees, especially those past their mid-fifties, face a more daunting task in replacing a lost job. 

Canadian courts are instructed to follow precedent. Judges must follow previous court decisions unless the facts are dissimilar. Wrongful dismissal trials are, therefore, based as much on the prevailing precedents as they are concerned with the facts of any given case.

For more information, see Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd. (1960), 24 D.L.R. (2d) 140 

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto employment lawyer. He can be reached at dan@toronto-employmentlawyer.com  or you can visit him on the web at www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com

May 23, 2007

Think Twice Before Taking Clients With You

A Business' greatest assets are its clients.  But those clients have legs.  And when they walk, the business follows. 

Daniel A. Lublin, Metro Toronto News -
Published Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Nothing infuriates a company more than news of an ex-employee soliciting away its most prized assets: the clients.  But clients, much like those employees, are not sedentary.  Seldom are they attracted to one company or another exclusively by virtue of the services they are offered.  Rather, their affiliation lies with the relationships that are build and the key employees who have built them.

Courts recognize that business relationships follow the employees who possess them and permit employers to protect their most valuable assets through contractual and equitable limits.  In today's employment contract, it is commonplace to find any combination of non-solicitation, non-competition and confidentiality clauses restricting your ability to work for the competition or solicit your book of business on the way out the door.

But not all post-employment behaviour amounts to infidelity.  In my Metro News article "Changing Jobs Require More than Giving Two Weeks' Notice" you can read the five legal points to remember, to keep you both in business and out of the courtroom

Daniel A. Lublin

April 27, 2007

Wan't to fire that Slacker? The best defence is always a good offence.

Armed with the knowledge that an employer can contract out of all but its minimum statutory obligations, I’m mystified why more businesses don’t follow the trend.  Nevertheless, for those proactive organizations concerned about the bottom line, the key is to draft contractual provisions that will withstand judicial scrutiny. 

Just as my Metro News Column provided the 5 tips for any employee about to begin a new job (read here), in my view, employers would be well advised to make the first move.  The roadmap to victory is the flipside of my recipe for employees.  Although, I can’t guarantee that my approach will be infallible, by introducing these measures, victory will occur more often than not.  And, as the saying goes, the best defence is always a good offence. 

For employers with the motivation to diminish the amount of severance paid, better yet, to a mediocre employee, I offer the following eight tips to ensure a valid and enforceable termination provision. 

1.      Make certain that prior to the point at which the employment offer is made, the prospective candidate has receipt of any offer letter, contract, agreement or otherwise that is being relied upon to comprise the terms of employment.  This will avoid any confusion, or worse, misrepresentation that goes to the terms of the offer. 

2.      The prospective candidate should always be encouraged to obtain independent legal advice or at the very least, be given ample time to consider the nature of the contract.  A clear case of duress is a recipe for disaster when it comes to a severance limiting provision. 

3.      Even if the employee has received appropriate counsel, care should be taken to point out the meaning of the more sophisticated terms, and draw the employee’s attention to the fact of a severance limiting provision.  The individual presenting the offer should document this conversation.   

4.      If re-negotiating the terms of an existing employee’s position, fresh consideration (some compensation or other benefit) must be provided to the employee.   

5.      Severance limiting language must be clear and unambiguous.  A small degree of uncertainty is a prescription for courts to interfere with the bargain an employer though it had made.   

6.      The termination provision must provide the employee with the minimum amount of severance provided by the governing legislation.  In Ontario, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 sets out a ladder of minimum severance payments for any dismissed employee.  The legislation should be specifically and clearly referenced in the contract itself.  In the contracts that I prepare for my employer clients, I actually provide slightly more than the minimum standards as an employee need to execute a release for what she was already entitled to under the legislation.     

7.      An otherwise valid contract can be struck down as unconscionable or unreasonable.  While the Employment Standard Act, 2000 is a great starting point, employers should renegotiate greater amounts of severance as employees gain tenure or increased value with the organization.   

8.      Contracts should include a severability provision ensuring that if one aspect of the contract is struck down as unenforceable, the remaining terms of the contract will survive. 

Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto employment lawyer, specializing in discipline and dismissal.  He can be reached at www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com

For additional information on employment contracts, and specifically the law of consideration, see Michael Fitzgibbon's article here